One day after accusing the media of acting as President Obama’s “scandal condom” on the Benghazi story, The Five’s Greg Gutfeld was at it again, this time calling MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert “media hacks” for their highly critical commentary on Fox News’ coverage.
“People died, but what difference does it make?” Gutfeld said sarcastically, echoing Hillary Clinton’s infamous Benghazi hearing question. “The story will probably die, like the four in Benghazi with the lapdog media standing down, making these so-called journalists co-conspirators in the Benghazi cover-up, and that’s comedy when you’re winning.” He summed up the position of Maddow, Stewart and Colbert like this: “They refuse to actually cover the story. Instead, they want to cover people who care about the story, because then that kind of absolves them from having to deal with the ugliness.”

Bill O’Reilly brought on Bernard Goldberg tonight to analyze how much the media has covered Benghazi in the aftermath of yesterday’s big hearing. O’Reilly noted how Fox News gave it the most coverage, the nightly newscasts gave it a few minutes of coverage, and MSNBC pretty much ignored it. Goldberg said that MSNBC ignoring the story basically makes the network no more than a “public relations firm” in the employ of President Obama and the Democratic party.

O’Reilly cited statistics showing that Fox News covered the hearing live for almost two hours, CNN for roughly fifteen minutes, and MSNBC for absolutely no time at all. He pointed out that all of the network newscasts led with the big news story from Cleveland, but the CBS Evening News had the most coverage, clocking in at almost five minutes. The morning shows had similarly minimal coverage.

There are times, not many thankfully, when I get depressed, brought down by the sorry evidence that we live in a country fixated on shiny objects. This is one of those times.

A jury in Phoenix has found Jodi Arias guilty of first-degree murder. That’s not what gets me down. What I find so depressing is our collective fascination with trivia, with anything that we can follow without having to actually think.

By 2012, the major media had become so comfortable with Clinton lies that not a single one among them pointed out the grotesque irony of having an unrepentant sexual predator keynote a Democratic Convention whose theme was the “Republican war on women.”

So accustomed had Hillary grown to having her lies glossed over that she grew increasingly indignant even at the timid questions Congress threw her way at the January 2013 Benghazi hearing.

When asked by Senator Ron Johnson about her version of events, Hillary exploded in an outburst destined to be at least as famous as her “vast right wing conspiracy” jeremiad.

Said Hillary, summing up the state of public integrity in 2013, “What difference at this point does it make?” Say what you will, but as recently as January that was a legitimate question.

To be sure, Benghazi will damage Hillary, at least in the short run. But come the Iowa Caucus in 2016, look for the media to champion version 2.0 of the “Comeback Kid.” They have too much emotional equity invested in Hillary to do otherwise.

Charles Krauthammer called State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell’s response to the Benghazi Hearing “pathetic.” Ventrell told reporters earlier today, ”We don’t believe that new information was necessarily presented that hadn’t been already either entered into the public record through congressional testimony or investigated by the ARB or otherwise looked at.”

“What difference at this point does it make?” Secretary Clinton responded in January to questions about the nature of the Benghazi attack. “Let’s put this behind us,” Secretary of State John Kerry complained last month. Last week, White House spokesman Jay Carney dismissed press inquiries about the attack by saying, “Benghazi was a long time ago.”

But many more questions remain. Here are a dozen:

Why was the State Department unwilling to provide the requested level of security to Benghazi?

Were there really no military assets available to provide relief during the seven hours of the attacks? If so, why not? During the attacks, were any military assets ordered to stand down?

If the secretary of defense thought there was “no question” this was a coordinated terrorist attack, why did Ambassador Susan Rice, Secretary Clinton, and President Obama all tell the American people that the cause was a “spontaneous demonstration” about an Internet video?

Why did the State Department edit the intelligence talking points to delete the references to “Islamic extremists” and “al Qa’ida”?

Why did the FBI release pictures of militants taken the day of the attack only eight months after the fact? Why not immediately, as proved so effective in the Boston bombing?

Why have none of the survivors testified to Congress?

Why is the administration apparently unaware of the whistle-blowers who have been attempting to tell their stories? Is it true that these career civil servants have been threatened with retaliation?

Did President Obama sleep the night of September 11, 2012? Did Secretary Clinton?

When was President Obama told about the murder of our ambassador? About the murder of all four Americans? What did he do in response?

What role, if any, did the State Department’s own counterterrorism office play during the attacks and in their immediate aftermath?

Why was Secretary Clinton not interviewed for the ARB report?

And why, if all relevant questions were answered in the ARB report, has the State Department’s own inspector-general office opened a probe into the methods of that very report?

“If any of the brothers were a Republican, this news would have been trumpeted by the mainstream media as tangible proof of the Republican War on Women — a narrative invented by Democrat strategists and maintained by the media in a successful effort to defeat Republican candidates in the 2012 election cycle.
“However, when a real act of war on women is perpetrated by a Democrat voter in the manner that even the most zealous Democrat strategist couldn’t have dreamed up in their worst nightmares — involving abduction, imprisonment, rape, torture, malnutrition, beatings while pregnant, and killing babies — the media doesn’t think the party affiliation is relevant.”
– Oleg Atbashian, American Thinker, “Ariel Castro, Cleveland Kidnapper, Is a Registered Democrat”

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – The Missouri Legislature sent the governor a bill Wednesday that would expand gun rights and declare all federal gun regulations unenforceable, in a response to President Obama’s push for gun control legislation.

The Republican-led Legislature passed the measure hoping to shield the state from federal proposals that would ban assault weapons and expand background checks. But the U.S. Senate’s defeat of a background check expansion three weeks ago did nothing to assuage the fears of Missouri Republicans who pressed forward with their legislation.

The Missouri House voted 118-36 Wednesday to send the bill to Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon. The Senate passed the measure earlier this month.

This is huge. ICE Union president Chris Crane was invited on the Mark Levin Show tonight to explain how the Obama administration is cooking the books on immigration enforcement. What he said was pretty shocking.

According to Crane, ICE agents can no longer make street arrests of people they suspect to be an illegal aliens, illegal alien gang members or illegal alien criminals, despite having the authority to do so by laws enacted by Congress. He says they are under orders to wait until the illegal alien commits a crime, gets arrested by law enforcement and booked into a jail before they can even intercede.

Then they must wait until the illegal alien is convicted of 3 or more criminal offenses before they can put them in deportation process.

When it comes to cooking the immigration books, Crane says the record number of deportations that the Obama administration touts is a complete fraud. He calls it a shell game, saying what really happens is illegal aliens caught crossing the border by the Border Patrol and then sent back across are now added to ICE’s numbers of deportations, thus inflating the numbers immensely. Crane said last year over 50% of the deportations in ICE’s numbers were from those the border patrol agents caught and sent back across.

In reality, Crane says they now have the numbers to show that since 2008, the actual number of ICE deportations has plummeted since 2008.

So was the Bush presidency, yet Obhammed’s administration tries to keep it as fresh as yesterday.

I’m sure that eight months ago is not as long ago as ten years, but everyone in the nation is calling for the public hanging of a man responsible for the deaths of at least five fetuses but not of the mothers of those fetuses.

There are people in prison for life, convicted of crimes committed decades earlier, yet I don’t hear their lawyers pleading their case for early release based on “It was a long time ago.”

But for both the low-info voter and the “COAM” (Cover Obama’s Arse Media) eight months seems to be three lifetimes ago and hardly worth the trouble to get to the truth, and to find out why it was all covered up by this administration. What, exactly, were they hiding? Incompetence at protecting American citizens? Lying about the fact that al Qaida is stronger today than when their revered leader was killed by our forces in an illegal raid in a foreign country? That this administration was involved in gun-running on a scale that makes Reagan’s “Contra” gun-running look like Sunday school?

And finally, if the cover-up did happen to keep the public from knowledge of gun-running, wouldn’t at least one of the testifiers have known about that minor little detail? Maybe our “hero” whistleblowers aren’t quite as clean as some would have them to be.

I totally agree with Mark Levin that it’s inexcusable that Hitlery wasn’t sworn in before the committee before giving testimony. I’ve been asking that very question since it happened. I believe it is “normal protocol” procedure not to swear in “Cabinet Secretary’s” when they testify before Congress and has been for years.

It’s inexcusable especially when they are giving testimony before a committee that is conducting a investigation. Particularly if the person testifying could possibly end up being a target of the investigation.

That sound that you are now hearing is the sound of the Dam fracturing, with the report from ABC News I expect more of them will have no alternative but to start covering this story. Lisa Myers is reporting that dimoCraps are trying to put out damaging reports on the “Whistle Blowers”. Then add the new story of the IRS targeting Tea Party and Patriot organizations.